Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)

[shvili]

Shvili,
This is big news! Definitely your efforts paid off. Looking back, would not you wish that you'd filed a civil action a lot sooner, huh? Anyway, congratulations!!!

Lazycis,

Thank you for your good wishes! You see, I talked to a lawyer about 1,5 years ago (-the one who told me that just to write a letter to the judge would cost $500 (now I wonder if he meant a letter of intent to sue or what???), and if that didn't work he would sue for $3000). I wasn't ready to pay because I thought it may just clear on its own., but especially because I didn't know of this forum. If I did, my husband would be probably a citizen by now...

If I knew then what I know now I should have chosen my member name as "lazyme"

 

[duck008]

Duck008,
From reading the sample JSR I just have couple of comments:
I would rephrase the plaintiff position where he talked about "resolving through filing motions" to something like:
Plaintiff expects his case to be resolved through defendants' completion of his background checks and all other steps CIS must take upon receipt of results of those checks, or in alternative by the decision of this honorable judge. Therefore, Plaintiff's position is that motions alone would not resolve this delay.

I would further propose a specific discovery steps, (like it was advised before by Paz and other members) ex: in addition to your A-file you should request FBI timeline in processing you nc/other file; declaration of FBI rep regarding you delays (why it was not processes in "first-come first serve" but instead pulled our of their line and delayed indefinitely) a Cis report of steps completed in reference to your case.

Also, even though I haven't gone to this step myself, but from seeing other cases I agree with W&W that this JSR is quite routine so don't get scared yet You can just file your positions in that joint statement. (And IMHO no need to hire an attorney yet)

Shvili,

Your answers are very valuable to me. I will adopt them into my JSR for sure. Also, thanks for your encouragement. I will keep you people updated as my case progresses.

P.S., as you all know that all visa numbers were used up for the year and we don't know whether it will be retrogressed again when new ones are out in October. What would you do based on different outcomes?

 

[shvili]

shvili, that is great news for your husband! Hope that we can congratulate him (and of course, you) pretty soon.

In my case I got the 2nd FP appointment for Dec. 26, 2006 and the my N-400application was adjudicated on Jan. 10, 2007. AUSA told me the good news only on Jan. 22, two days before the 30 day extension expired. I don't know if the name check was already cleared when they sent me the invitation fo the 2nd FP, but in my case I believe that there was a correlation between the NC and 2nd FP.

Paz,

Thank you for all your help and your great contributions to this forum! And thank you for helpful information! Do you mean in your case AUSA kept you in the dark for 12 days?! Like they're so busy they can't afford to notify plaintiff of the case update. That is disgusting! You have been very patient. About the lazy CIS (no pun intended) and all other defendants involved, my husband quoted a joke that in English translation would sound like:" a hedgehog is a very proud bird. It wont' fly until you kick it."

Strictly speaking, FBI is correct when they used the word "finalised" and this is not necessary means "cleared". The key is in the document posted by lazycis couple of postings ago (the congressional hearing about the immigration fee increases): "..the FBI provides USCIS with factual information and does not participate in the adjudicative process. Such information may have an impact on the final adjudication of the case..."

This is similar when you want to buy a car and you apply for a loan at the bank. The bank will ask a credit reporting agency about your credit history, but the agency will not clear you for the loan, they don't make the decision. The decision is made by the bank, using the report form the agency (among other things).

Paz,

You are right and I hope that's how it's working right now (i.e., CIS cares about our nc results the same way car loan business cares about our credit history ratings) and your analogy is very good- that how it's supposed to work. But I am afraid (for the sake of our safety) that it's not always the case-just remember an infamous case of one of 9/11 hijackers whose visa was approved in spite of his record known to INS... so back then CIS did not really account for their own info... But hopefully there's at least more accountability now and so for that reason I hope your analogy is proper nowadays.

Strictly speaking, the paralegal today did not say the word "cleared" either, -she said that nc results came back and that AO is ready to adjudicate (not "approve"!) as soon as they get copy of the FP form. And afterwards, they prepare to fax us a stipulation to dismiss... (But hopefully, in this case just like in Lo's case with "finalized" ,"adjudicate' means "approve",. Otherwise, we'll have to appeal to Hovsepian logic and request the court to reconsider de novo; and that would be very bad...) So yes, please don't congratulate us just yet. (I'm just somewhat superstitious in such matters ).

 

[shvili]

Shvili,

Your answers are very valuable to me. I will adopt them into my JSR for sure. Also, thanks for your encouragement. I will keep you people updated as my case progresses.

P.S., as you all know that all visa numbers were used up for the year and we don't know whether it will be retrogressed again when new ones are out in October. What would you do based on different outcomes?

Duck008,

I am glad to be of help but please don't take my words alone for granted because like I said, I have less personal experience than some other members of this forum, so my answer is from this forum' combined knowledge. So please post your developments and I hope the pros (paz, lazycis, wenlock, dude, lotech and others) may have some ideas about your visa question.

Good luck!

 

[duck008]

Hi duck008,

JSR is a routine step. I'm at the same stage as you. Talked to AUSA on the phone today. He was pretty nice but told me pretty much the same thing as your AUSA mentioned in the email. He sent me the same JSR template as well. Are you also in western district of Washington? Or maybe this is the stand template they are using.

We will have the 26(f) conference tomorrow on phone. Some of the things I will talk about are:

* I agree ADR doesn't apply but the template talks about filing MTD. My AUSA told me he would file an answer so I assume he will change the wording.

* The government is against discovery but I plan to add a paragraph saying that I will request production of documents. This I hope will put some pressure on them. In today's conversation with AUSA, I mentioned in camera review for classified information and he said I can put my opinion in the JSR.

* The government doesn't want to go to trial but I don't want to exclude that option.

* It seems most of the time the government doesn't want a magistrate judge. I have no objection having the case assigned to a magistrate judge.

Thanks w&w!

Yes I am in the same district as you. In your response above, what exactly is "production of documents" mean? Could you elaborate? You also stated in the last paragraph that "I have no objection having the case assigned to a magistrate judge", do you actually mean that you do NOT want to have it assigned to a magistrate judge?

How did your conference go today. Would you mind to share more about it later?

I never got a chance to talk to my AUSA. He doesn't seem interested in taking my phone calls. Or may be he is too busy, or he thinks that it is still too early for him to talk to me. How did you get him to talk to you and what kind of questions did you ask?

Thanks again and good luck to you!

 

[duck008]

Duck008,

I am glad to be of help but please don't take my words alone for granted because like I said, I have less personal experience than some other members of this forum, so my answer is from this forum' combined knowledge. So please post your developments and I hope the pros (paz, lazycis, wenlock, dude, lotech and others) may have some ideas about your visa question.

Good luck!

Thanks again Shvili! I believe that sharing ideas and developments are the best ways to help each other get through this. Good luck to you and all!

 

[w&w]

Congratulations shvili for your well deserved victory! I remember we filed the case at about the same time and it's encouraging to see good news like yours. My case is AOS and unfortunately it's still pending. From the history in my district, it's clear that 1447 cases are resolved much faster than AOS cases. I had the 26(f) conference with AUSA today and he told me that he will file an answer first and then MTD sometime later. I don't know if USCIS is just buying more time. I plan to do discovery first and then may file motion for summary judgment. Does anyone know what's the procedure to request documents in discovery? I'm trying to search for an example in PACER but haven't been able to find one.

 

[w&w]

Thanks w&w!

Yes I am in the same district as you. In your response above, what exactly is "production of documents" mean? Could you elaborate? You also stated in the last paragraph that "I have no objection having the case assigned to a magistrate judge", do you actually mean that you do NOT want to have it assigned to a magistrate judge?

How did your conference go today. Would you mind to share more about it later?

I never got a chance to talk to my AUSA. He doesn't seem interested in taking my phone calls. Or may be he is too busy, or he thinks that it is still too early for him to talk to me. How did you get him to talk to you and what kind of questions did you ask?

Thanks again and good luck to you!

duck008,

I think AUSAs are trying to avoid contact unless they have to. I sent several emails to my AUSA last month but never got any response. The deadline of the 26(f) conference is 7/19. Finally I received an email from AUSA last week and he said that we should have the conference between 7/16 to 7/18. So I called him on Monday and left a message. He then returned the call and we set the time of the conference. So don't worry you will get to talk to AUSA in the 26(f) conference. My AUSA told me that he doesn't have any information about my case status and he cannot do anything about it. I guess you will get the same response from your AUSA.

Sorry I will have to answer your other questions later. I'm preparing a JSR draft to be sent to the AUSA.

 

[Ninyte]

Paz,

Thank you for all your help and your great contributions to this forum! And thank you for helpful information! Do you mean in your case AUSA kept you in the dark for 12 days?! Like they're so busy they can't afford to notify plaintiff of the case update. That is disgusting!

About keeping you in the dark - I'm pretty sure thay don't even look at your case until they have to. We got our oath letter two weeks before their answer deadline. I don't think our AUSA knew about it until he had to give an answer to court and looked into it (one day before answer deadline). Oherwise, why wouldn't he file MTD as moot right away.
Just my two cents.

 

[GC-Pending]

.....

Also-a question to all-what is the relationship between FP request and nc process? Initially, FP precludes nc process, but in our case, when CIS requests FP repeated after a law suit is filed? From combined knowledge of this forum, my understanding is, CIS requests to repeat FP AFTER it has nc results and is ready to adjudicate. Please share your knowledge/thoughts...

From what I have seen, the repeat FP is just an effort by USCIS to hide their inaction and to show that they are doing something on your case. For my case, for example, the FP had expired for more than a year but just after filing the law suit and when the initial response was due, I got a letter to repeat the FP. I have seen similar situation with other cases as well. It seems as if repeat FP has nothing to do with the completion of nc.

 

[duck008]

Notice-Other without document in Pacer

I am looking at a case in Pacer. A query for all events returned is shown at the bottom of this. Is it strange to see the event between number 3 and 4? The description is "Notice-Other" but there is no document for it. Does it mean that this Notice is some sort of sensitive thing that they don't want you to see? Is there a way for you to get to see it?

Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc.
No. Dates Description
1
Filed: 06/14/2007
Entered: 06/15/2007
Complaint

2
Filed: 06/25/2007
Entered: 06/26/2007
Affidavit of Mailing

3
Filed & Entered: 06/28/2007
Notice of Appearance

-- Filed & Entered: 06/29/2007
Notice-Other

4
Filed & Entered: 06/29/2007
FORM - Joint Status Report Order

5
Filed & Entered: 06/29/2007
FORM - Joint Status Report Order

 

[lazycis]

I am looking at a case in Pacer. A query for all events returned is shown at the bottom of this. Is it strange to see the event between number 3 and 4? The description is "Notice-Other" but there is no document for it. Does it mean that this Notice is some sort of sensitive thing that they don't want you to see? Is there a way for you to get to see it?

Thanks!

duck008,
Everything filed with the court is a public record. You can go to clerk's office and request a copy (you'll have to pay for it if it is not your docket). Sometimes a document is not available on pacer, but more likely it's just a technical issue (clerk did not scan the doc or it's not possible to scan the doc or pacer database is outdated).

 

[imhrb]

Perhaps I should rephrase my thought: From seeing several members posts re FP notice and concurrent clearance of nc (which also apparently happened in my husband's case), it would be interesting to see how many people also got a FP notice AFTER they filed a law suit and if it did/did not coincide with their nc clearance. If it did coincide, was nc cleared shortly afterwards or was there a pendind delay, like in Lazycis case?

You see, the fact that you got no FP invitation doesn't disprove any correlation between FP and nc after law suit is filed (-I assume, you filed already) If anything, it may be a sign that they are not yet ready to act and so they don't request new FP.

But I hope your case moves along and you get your nc cleared soon!

shvilli

Thanks for the wishes. Yeah that would be interesting to see if there is a pattern. Yes we did file our case, got the MTD, responded to it, and filed for MSJ as well this week. But with all this, still no FP!

 

[shvili]

Congratulations shvili for your well deserved victory! I remember we filed the case at about the same time and it's encouraging to see good news like yours. My case is AOS and unfortunately it's still pending. From the history in my district, it's clear that 1447 cases are resolved much faster than AOS cases. I had the 26(f) conference with AUSA today and he told me that he will file an answer first and then MTD sometime later. I don't know if USCIS is just buying more time. I plan to do discovery first and then may file motion for summary judgment. Does anyone know what's the procedure to request documents in discovery? I'm trying to search for an example in PACER but haven't been able to find one.

W&W,

Thank you for your wishes! Technically, we haven't won yet (I would relax only when my husband is given oath!) but I hope we are getting close. It does look like N-400 are resolved faster and easier than AOS cases. One reason may be, in most N-400 CIS actually requests to expedite nc. That's what (i think) happened. And also under 1447 the case is stonger than under WOM.

In your case, what I found is first is a Request for Document Production (see chap. 11 pro se handbook). It looks doable- look at the subchapter "how do I get documents from other parties? and the following "forms"-it describes pretty well how to do it. If they refuse (which is likely) you may have to file "motion to compel". According to the pro se handbook, it is to compel a party to make disclosures or to respond to discovery. Unfortunately it looks like a piece of work! You must include:
certification that you acted in good faith;
explanation of dispute and your request to the court;
complete text of each disputed discovery request followed by complete text of objections or disputed responses;
explanation of facts/law to support the motion.
(-please see chap. 12 for more). But I suggest also read on how to serve subpoena- remember Wenlock example! You can directly subpoena FBI to discuss your records/produce them! It sounds drastic but if they drag on any way, you don't have to worry about "broken friendship" with them!

Good luck!

 

[lazycis]

From what I have seen, the repeat FP is just an effort by USCIS to hide their inaction and to show that they are doing something on your case. For my case, for example, the FP had expired for more than a year but just after filing the law suit and when the initial response was due, I got a letter to repeat the FP. I have seen similar situation with other cases as well. It seems as if repeat FP has nothing to do with the completion of nc.

I agree that in some cases (mine included) USCIS does pull this trick. A friend of mine contacted a senator and got FP notice afterwards, but he is still stuck in NC. In my case I've got the second FP notice when AUSA answer was due (even though FP were expired long before). It was even more comical after that as my case went from VSC to TSC and four weeks later from TSC back to VSC.

In some cases, however, people do get the second FP right after NC is cleared. But I do not see how to distinguish between the two.

 

[mt100]

interviewed by FBI

AUSA communicated in mid june’07 that my expedite request was not approved and he would file MTD on July 6th. He would use Walji decision as a precedence. If the judge did not grant MTD, he would file Motion for Summary judgement. If the judge did not grant MSJ, he would file an appeal in the 9th circuit court. (I am in Southern California, Santa Ana)

Out of nowhere, on July 3rd, I had a surprise visit from an FBI special agent at my work place. He told me that he came to complete background investigation required for my naturalization application. He asked me questions about my family members and travel history. The interview took about 40 minutes. At then end of the interview, he said that my background investigation has been completed and FBI is done. He will forward the results to USCIS. I told him that I have filed a lawsuit. He did not seem to know about it. He asked for AUSA's phone number, and said that he would call him and let him know that my background investigation has been completed and there are no issues. Later on, AUSA told me that the FBI special agent who interviewed me called him. AUSA asked me if I wanted to sign another 60 day extension. I agreed to that.

Next week, I called the FBI special agent who interviewed me. He again confirmed that the background check from his side is complete and there is no adverse information about me. But he said that he is not from the name check section of the FBI. The name check may still be pending and that I should contact the AUSA regarding any name check issues.

AUSA mentioned that he would be out of town for a week. So I haven't been able to contact him yet.

I was under the impression that background check completion means name check completion. But this does not seem to be the case. And my initial 6 month communication with the AUSA was completely useless as my name check expedite request was refused by USCIS.

Any idea if this background check investigation is a good thing or something that I should be concerned about?, as I haven't heard this happening to any other member of this forum.

Furthermore, did I do the right thing in signing yet another 60 day extension?

 

[worried2007]

what

AUSA communicated in mid june’07 that my expedite request was not approved and he would file MTD on July 6th. He would use Walji decision as a precedence. If the judge did not grant MTD, he would file Motion for Summary judgement. If the judge did not grant MSJ, he would file an appeal in the 9th circuit court. (I am in Southern California, Santa Ana)

Out of nowhere, on July 3rd, I had a surprise visit from an FBI special agent at my work place. He told me that he came to complete background investigation required for my naturalization application. He asked me questions about my family members and travel history. The interview took about 40 minutes. At then end of the interview, he said that my background investigation has been completed and FBI is done. He will forward the results to USCIS. I told him that I have filed a lawsuit. He did not seem to know about it. He asked for AUSA's phone number, and said that he would call him and let him know that my background investigation has been completed and there are no issues. Later on, AUSA told me that the FBI special agent who interviewed me called him. AUSA asked me if I wanted to sign another 60 day extension. I agreed to that.

Next week, I called the FBI special agent who interviewed me. He again confirmed that the background check from his side is complete and there is no adverse information about me. But he said that he is not from the name check section of the FBI. The name check may still be pending and that I should contact the AUSA regarding any name check issues.

AUSA mentioned that he would be out of town for a week. So I haven't been able to contact him yet.

I was under the impression that background check completion means name check completion. But this does not seem to be the case. And my initial 6 month communication with the AUSA was completely useless as my name check expedite request was refused by USCIS.

Any idea if this background check investigation is a good thing or something that I should be concerned about?, as I haven't heard this happening to any other member of this forum.

Furthermore, did I do the right thing in signing yet another 60 day extension?

fbi agent came to ur job, never heard of such a thing, so if they know everything about everyone what the hell is their issue with this name check delay , u can check someone name on google in 2 seconds and its taking uscis years to do so

 

[duck008]

duck008,
Everything filed with the court is a public record. You can go to clerk's office and request a copy (you'll have to pay for it if it is not your docket). Sometimes a document is not available on pacer, but more likely it's just a technical issue (clerk did not scan the doc or it's not possible to scan the doc or pacer database is outdated).

Thanks lazycis! I went to the court and found out that it was just an entry to record that they sent me the docket.

Yes, according to the clerk, one is entitled to see all documents for his/her own case unless a document is filed by the court under seal.

 

[shvili]

Stipulation to dismiss

I have an urgent question to you all:

Our AUSA office is in a hurry too as the paralegal today e-mailed us the stipulation to dismiss and the proposed order. It need to be signed by my husband and says: "in light of the fact that USICS has agreed to adjudicate plaintiff's application for naturalization within 30 days of the dismissal of this action."

The order looks identical to many orders in our district/ same USA office, (see the attachment of another similar order).

Being in the 9th Cir. we must dismiss first before CIS can rule in this case, now court has jurisdiction. But if CIS stalls again, the only option for us is to file another complaint (and pay another $350)? Someone posted that they added a provision in there that they would be allowed to reopen the complaint if CIS fails to deliver. Another question: they use the word "adjudicate", not approve and it also gives a little concern to me. Like, if they deny, we have then to reapply to CIS for appeal, etc. (I doubt that, of course, but it's probable).

Anyone with this experience, please post ASAP-I have to call paralegal with my comments.
Thank you!

 

[shvili]

I have an urgent question to you all:
if CIS stalls again, the only option for us is to file another complaint (and pay another $350)? Someone posted that they added a provision in there that they would be allowed to reopen the complaint if CIS fails to deliver. Another question: they use the word "adjudicate", not approve and it also gives a little concern to me.
Anyone with this experience, please post ASAP-I have to call paralegal with my comments.
Thank you!

I called our paralegal with this and she clarified, "without prejudice" means exactly that we can reopen this law suit without filing again. So I told her that my husband will sign stipulation and fax it today.

Also, I asked about "adjudication"-she said as she understands CIS is ready to approve. So as soon as she gets a signature from our judge they're supposed to invite him to oath ceremony.